i'm concerned about the presidential promise i can know whoever signs that promise is going to defend female athletics and that means a lot as an ncaa athlete. >> john: we'll wait and see which candidates do, three that have and ron desantis has passed a law in the state of florida. see what the other candidates do. macy petty, good to catch up with you. thanks for being with us. >> thanks so much for having me. >> cavalcante has clearly obtained some clothing and unknown other supplies and we want to minimize any opportunity to obtain anything more. you are dealing with someone who is desperate and does not want to be caught. >> john: all-out manhunt underway outside of philadelphia as a convicted killer remains on the run after escaping a county prison. they say 34-year-old danelo cavalcante is desperate and dangerous and now confirmed sightings. welcome as hour two of "america

reports" gets underway. hope you had a great long weekend. >> sandra: i'm sandra smith, all hands on deck search. officials are expanding resources and moving south after the fugitive was seen on monday night, a hooded sweatshirt and carrying a duffle backpack. school districts have closed, residents are on full alert. >> john: brazilian national was not even in jail a month before he escaped. he was convicted for fatally stabbing his ex-girlfriend 38 times in front of her two young children. prosecutors say he killed her to stop her from telling police about charges against him back in his native brazil. the>> sandra: nate foy, live in the new york city newsroom. any leads? >> six sightings of danelo cavalcante and the search is expanding in land and also in resources.

the fbi and border patrol are now joining u.s. marshals, as well as state and local authorities as state police revealed the convicted killer slipped past their perimeter. take a look at the new trail footage. cavalcante five minutes south of chester county prison. a new sweatshirt, backpack and duffle bag, outside the area where police thought he was surrounded. >> i think he is -- he squeezed through the perimeter and traveled south. and we will now expand and move it to encapsulate him again. >> he escaped on thursday morning before 9:00. received a life sentence for murdering his former girlfriend in pennsylvania in 2021. also accused of another murder in brazil, his home country in 2017. the u.s. marshal's office says after that he entered the

country illegally. cavalcante is described as extremely dangerous. a state trooper saw him sunday night, gave chase but could not catch him. today two school districts canceled class because of the search. they are asking people to lock their doors for their safety and so cavalcante cannot get more supplies. $10,000 reward is offered for information leading to his arrest. he's five feet tall and 120 pounds. and authorities are playing a recorded message from his mother in portuguese to convince him to surrender peacefully. but authorities say he's desperate, makes him even more dangerous. back to you. >> sandra: nate foy with the latest on that. we will learn more in the next few minutes. listening for the update. senate is set to reconvene after a month-long break and both sides will be looking to avoid a looming government shut down. one of the big things is funding

for the border wall. before that all eyes are on senate minority leader mitch mcconnell who returns to the capitol after another concerning health episode. chad pergram is following all of it live from capitol hill. will we hear from senator mcconnell directly? >> sandra, good afternoon. his office says he will deliver opening remarks after the senate gavels in but doubtful he will address his health. he could talk policy, however, an update, not from mcconnell but from the capitol doctor. brian monaghan is the attending physician. he says there is no evidence you have a seizure disorder or suffered a stroke. monaghan also ruled out parkinson's. >> when the capitol physician puts himself on the record like this, i find that reassuring, it's not likely, very unlikely that he would fabricate

anything. he has his medical ethics to be dealing with here. >> lawmakers are watching mcconnell closely to see if he's up for the job. >> health scares are scary, and we all go through them in our families and we all wish the best health for everyone. the senate needs to be able to operate and respond and they have given us no indication that mcconnell can't and isn't up to the job. >> this comes as republicans hammer president biden over his age and fitness for office but it could backfire if the gop does not ask the same questions about mcconnell. the issue permeates -- >> i think there should be mental competency tests. basic tests. >> such a mandate would be unconstitutional. the constitution has three requirements for someone to serve in the senate. they must be 30 years old, a citizen for nine years and live

in the state they represent. sandra. >> sandra: we will be watching for all of that to unfold a short time from now. chad, thank you. so john, today's the day they will return and we will likely hear from mcconnell himself a short time from now. >> john: the doctor gave him a clean bill of health. there was speculation maybe he had parkinson's and what we saw when the medicine starts to wear off, but the attending physician at the capitol said no evidence of any kind of a movement disorder. so perhaps it is lingering effects from the fall, he had a bad concussion, a little bit of dehydration, we'll see how he does. >> sandra: this as the wall street journal is out with the new poll on the president's age and 2024, john, and when asked, are they too old to run again, those that say biden is too old, 73%, john. 47% say the former president donald trump is too old to run again. >> john: and when you consider there is really only three years

difference in age between the two of them, it's not just a number, it's perception of how a person is. then vice president's emails are the center of a brand-new lawsuit related to the corruption allegations against his family. a non-profit group, southeastern legal foundation is demanding that the national archives hand over all documents relating to several pseudonyms that biden used to send email during his vice presidency. the group says aliases were used to discuss official white house business with his son. so does this have a strong case should it go to court. jonathan turley, constitutional law attorney and fox news contributor. professor, good to see you this tuesday afternoon. i wanted to ask you first of all about news that fox news digital uncovered that james comer is sending subpoenas to the dhs secretary, the head of the

secret service and several other individuals seeking documents and testimony related to hunter biden being tipped off back in 2020 about an interview. what do you say to all of this? will comer prevail with these subpoenas, what might he learn? >> it's often difficult to force information out of agencies like the secret service, but congress has its separate obligations. when push comes to shove they usually get something and this is worth pursuing. look, you had representatives raskin and goldman saying in previous hearings there's nothing extraordinary here. this is what happens all the time in criminal investigations. and you have these irs agents saying no, it's not. and then an fbi agent saying no, it's not. agent saying we were forced to stay a block away from his house and then waved off and no,

that's not how we usually conduct interviews suspects. a good reason why congress is asking these questions and i expect, the biden administration as they have in the past, are going to oppose any types of disclosures. but courts have to recognize that congress has a separate obligation and it may soon be pursuing an impeachment inquiry where their power will be at its apex. >> sandra: john, stand by, we want to jump to the white house briefing, they are talking about president biden and the covid protocols he has to observe now that the first lady has tested positive for covid. listen for a second here. >> his physician, of course, all travelers, all travelers, including the president will test before travelling to india. so that is certainly something that the president will do. as i mentioned, the cdc,

following cdc guidelines, cdc does not recommend testing every day after close contact, that is their recommendation. we are going to follow the cdc guidelines. they recommend a combination of things, masking, testing and monitoring for symptoms. he has no symptoms. he will have close consultation with his physician and that's all i can share. >> can you be more specific what a regular cadence -- >> regular cadence in consultation with his physician. i can tell you as i said, all travelers are certainly going to test, right, before they head out to india, and that's including the president. so that is something that is happening in what, i don't know, leaving on thursday. so, there you go. >> just a couple more logistical. pcr tests the president is getting? >> that is something the physician decides, i don't have that information. >> reiterate again to us, what

is the current covid protocol for anyone meeting with the president, senior staff, are you all still testing? >> any time we are around any of the principals we do test. that has been -- that has been the way we have moved forward for the past almost two years here, so that has not changed. no other -- no white house protocol is going to be changing as i said at the top, but when we do have close engagement with the president, the senior staff as you know or anyone, we do have, we do test. >> and broader covid question, with we did an interview with dr. deborah burkes and said leaders are living in a fantasy worlds, the vaccine booster is coming way too late, what's your response to that assessment, and are you confident you are as prepared as you can be and this booster is going to work? >> well, look, we know that we have made historic progress in

this nation, in this ability to manage covid, right. in a way that's no longer meaningful and disrupting our daily lives, because of the work that this president has done, the work this administration has done, and we actually believe we are in a better place than we have ever been to deal with covid and that's because we have tools in our tool belt, right. we have safe -- we are going to have those midterm -- midterm -- sorry, mid-september vaccines which are going to be incredibly important. we have home -- at home tests, absolutely important. we have treatments that we know are effective, so that we can reduce severe illness, reduce hospitalization and reduce death. so, look, we listen to the experts, the scientists, that's what we do here, and we are going to be continuously working with them, certainly in coordination, and cdc and

midterm -- midterm -- why do i keep saying that? it passed, yeah, it passed. so i'm safe. anyway, so these mid-september vaccines which are going to be incredibly, we believe important if it's also done, let's not forget, the flu vaccine and the rsv vaccine, all of those things are important and this is something that the president had made sure that we are -- that is available. we feel again, we are in a very good position to deal with covid-19 in the fall and we are going to continue to listen to the experts as we move forward. >> just one more, jake noted obviously you have some experience on attending summits virtually if need be, but look ahead to what the next week could look like, are you thinking logistically through this should the president, were he to test positive halfway there or -- >> i'm not going to get ahead of that. what i can say right now, we do not have any changes to updates or changes to his travel.

the president tested negative yesterday, tested negative this morning and has no symptoms, he's feeling good, you are going to see him in about an hour and of course he's going to be very cautious and wear a mask as the cdc guidelines suggest or request. and so you know, that's how we are going to move forward. we don't have any updates and changes. i'm just going to repeat what my colleague, jake said, is that of course we know how to move forward in these situations. but again, we feel -- we don't have any updates in any schedule, and the president is feeling fine and we are going to move forward. >> and covid to follow on that, is there -- is there the president did have a bit of a cough yesterday during his speech, wondering if he had any other symptoms or concern around that? >> no, no symptoms at all that i can -- that's related, that would be related to this. this current conversation that we are having.

>> ok. and you mentioned the mid-september vaccines. is this spike of kind of incidents that are happening. is there any concern that is coming a little bit too late in terms of immunization in the population right now. >> totally understand the question. experts feel again we listen to the experts, cdc, fda, they have to go through the process to get the vaccines done and ready to go, that's going to be mid-september. september 5th, what is it, right, and so we are not far from that -- from mid-september, and we are going to do our job as we do every time, when it comes to new vaccine or anything, any of the tools that are out there, we are going to make sure we encourage americans to get those vaccines. we know that these vaccines work, right. we know when people stay up to date with their vaccine it works. and so that's where i'll certainly leave that but look, we have seen -- we have experienced increases in

covid-19 during the last three summers so it's not surprising that we are seeing an uptick in this long period, right, a long period of declining rates, so this is not surprising. but again, we are going to make sure when the mid-september vaccines are available that we are certainly going to let folks know and give them the information they need and take the flu vaccine and rsv shots. all three are key and critical as we get into fall. >> president biden does test positive for covid in the coming days, we can assume he's not going to travel to india. >> i'm not going to get tied -- there are no updates to the schedule. he tested negative last night, negative today, that's what matters. he's not having any symptoms. i'm not going to get into hypotheticals. >> quick follow-up -- when should we expect the next test update from you? you said the cdc is saying not every day, but he's doing it based on doctor's recommendations.

would he get tested tomorrow and again on thursday before leaving? >> look, this is something -- regular cadence is up to his physician, close consultation, all travelers, including the president will get tested before we go to india. we leave for india on thursday, today is tuesday. i don't have anything further to share. we shared with you he tested clearly last night and today. that is up to the physician. we are going to continue to follow as well as the president, cdc guidance. >> on the uaw possible strike, the president said if asked if he was worried about, no, i'm not worried about a strike unless it happens, i don't think it's going to happen. the head of the uaw said he must know something we don't know. why is the president confident a strike will not happen? >> as you know, karen, for someone who followed the president, he's an optimistic person and he's going to remain

optimistic as these negotiations continue and it will result in a win-win. remember, this is a president that believes in collective bargaining, both sides coming to the table, and that the uaw at the heart of an electric future made in america, we believe it's a win-win, incredibly important. and so we believe as well auto workers should get the wages and benefits they deserve. this is a president that has been very consistent and has been -- has said that over the last two years. so, he's optimistic that both sides are going to come to the table and come to an agreement as we have seen with other -- other situations where there was collective bargaining where both sides came in good faith and resulted in a good outcome. and so he's going to be optimistic. he believes in collective bargaining and that's what we hope to see both sides have that

conversation. >> the latest on the updated negotiations. >> i think you know this, reported on this, jean sperling has played the lead having the discussions as well as julie su, so we have been having conversations and so he's updated by his -- by julie su and white house senior staffers, including gene, and that's how he's staying up to date. >> appreciate it. one quick one on covid. when the boosters are available, can we expect the president and the first lady will get them. will they do that publicly -- >> i can't speak to a schedule, but yes, you can expect both of them will get their updated vaccines. like all americans who are eligible should do so. >> on the potential government shutdown, i understand the action is largely on the hill, how does the president see his

role in trying to avert a government shutdown at this point? >> i've said this over and over again, and continue to say this. there is no reason, there is no reason for congress to shut down the government, absolutely none. they should keep their word and do their job, which is keeping the government open. and we have to -- it is critical, it is important, just heard from the national security adviser, right, it's important to fund these incredibly vital programs american people need and troops need and emergency needs that we have and so there should not be a reason to shut down the government. we believe congress should do their job. it is their job, their job to get this done. >> the president had any conversations about this in recent days, can he expect him to read some of those? >> i can't speak to any conversations that he's had, you know, many of that's conversations the president has, we try to keep them private. i can say and you've heard from

jake, he said there's been extensive conversation on the supplemental specifically to ukraine on both the house and the senate side and how we truly want to see this continue to be a bipartisan effort moving forward. and just more broadly as you are asking me about the budget. look, you've heard me say the o and b director has been involved in the conversation, legislative affairs office has been very much engaged in the conversations and that's going to continue because it is crucial and important to fund the vital programs. >> finally, public reporting that he would support a short-term -- is that the case that he would sign a short-term cr? >> we believe that it is going to be up to them, right, up to congress what they decide to do, so i'll certainly defer to them. but look, again, the government should not be shut down, it should be founded, vital and

critical programs that american people need. i'm not going to -- look, i'll say this. it's clear because the fiscal year is coming to an end that congress will need to pass a short-term continuing resolution to keep the government running. that is clear where we are right now. and i think i've said this before, o and b has provided technical assistance to ensure there are no disruptions to impact programs the american people rely on. as far as how long this should go or i would have to refer to congress on that specifically. >> thank you, careen. president biden is the oldest president in u.s. history. why does white house staff treat him like a baby? >> no one treats the president of the united states, commander in chief like a baby. that's ridiculous claim. >> sounded like a call for regime change in reference to the president, rather than owning his failure he fumed to friends how he was treated like a toddler, was john kennedy ever babied like that.

>> there is going to be a range, always a range of books that are about every administration as you know, that's going to have a variety of claims. that is not unusual, that happens all the time and we are not going to litigate those here, we are not going to speak to. i think i was asked this question last week by one of your colleagues about this particular excerpt that they were referring to and so i'll say this. you know, we did see the excerpt, the context of the excerpt and it seemed to be making the opposite overall point about how the value of his experience and wisdom resulted in rallying the free world against authoritarianism, which is important, you all have seen this and passage of the most historic agenda in most recent history, handling of the foreign policy like rallying the world around ukraine as you have heard from our national security adviser who laid out in really good questions that your colleagues asked about how the

president is moving forward, about ukraine, about kind of leading into these conversations that he's going to be having at the g20. >> why do you think it is in the wall street journal poll, two-thirds of democrats think president biden is too old to run again? >> look, here is what i know, what i can speak to. i can speak to a president who has wisdom, a president who has experience, i can speak to a president who has done historic, taken historic actions and has delivered historic pieces of legislation. and that's important. when the last guy who was in the oval office talked about infrastructure week, it was a joke and the president passed a pretty important piece of legislation in a bipartisan way because of his wisdom, because of his experience and now we have infrastructure decade. and it doesn't stop there. it -- last week we talked about how the president beat big pharma. something that elected officials and politicians have been trying to do for 33 years and he's been

able to do that and we introduced ten, the first traunch, the first ten drugs that medicare can now negotiate on, right, and it's going to save money for our seniors, for americans across the country. the gentleman that introduced the president, steven, 71 years old, paying $16,000 a month, $16,000 a month, just to stay alive because he had cancer and diabetes and he cannot retire because he's -- because he has to pay $16,000 a month. and because of the work that this president has done he doesn't have to do that anymore. and i'll say one last thing i know you have a follow-up, probably five more, but one last thing, the interesting thing about this is that the president has done these historic pieces of legislation, whether it's the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, whether it's the american rescue plan, whether it's chips and science act, whether it's the inflation reduction act. there are some republicans, right, in the house, in the

senate that did not vote for any of these legislations that i just laid out who go back to their state, go back to their district and take credit for something that the president did. so, this is not unusual, they did this in 2019, they did this in 2020 and did this in 2022 and the president continues to prevail. >> one more, the president said over the long weekend he has not had the occasion to go to east palestine, i just haven't been able to break. the derailment was on february 3rdrd. president biden has not had a break since february 3rd? >> the president will go to east palestine, he promised he would and he will. >> he was not on a break when i was in lake tahoe? >> i will say this again. the president is going to go to east palestine as he says he is committed to do. you saw him this saturday visit a rural area, right, that was devastated, some parts were devastated by hurricane idalia, and he was there with the first

lady. they were able to hear directly from the american people and he was able to talk about what is it that they need. what is it -- what else do they need from the federal government. so, the president is going to go to east palestine, i don't have a time or date to announce at this time. >> john: the president is going doing to east palestine at some point, and karine jean-pierre also pushing back against the findings of the poll in the wall street journal that two-thirds of democrats and more than 70% of all americans think the president's too old to run for office again. more breaking news, too. >> sandra: right now, to the attorneys for alex murdaugh, the attorneys are holding a presser to discuss a motion for a new trial. they claim they have mysterious newly discovered evidence he, listen here. >> since they are heavily invested in maintaining alex's convictions. we suggest they wait for the court of appeals to rule and receive direction from the trial court. if the court of appeals remands

the case for hearing, we would ask those in the media and public respect the privacy for those included in the filing. jim and i want to thank those on the team who stand behind us and worked tirelessly to ferret out the truth. alex murdaugh maintains and still maintains his innocence in the murder of maggie and paul and believes the truth will only prevail. >> the right to a jury trial is a fundamental principle of our justice system. jurors must be free from outside influences and must decide the case solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom, subject to the rules of evidence, subject to the rules of the court, and most importantly, subject to the crucible of the sixth amendment by the constitution, the right

to confront witnesses. when jurors receive private communications outside the confines of a public courtroom, the sixth amendment is violated and numerous other constitutional rights are violated. and that's not jim griffin on the law that, is the law of the land, and i want to quote from a decision from the south carolina court of appeals behind me and states this. where there is a private communication of a court official to members of the jury and occurrence which cannot be tolerated is the sanctity of the jury system is to be maintained, a new trial must be granted unless it clearly appears the subject matter of the communication was harmless and could not have affected the verdict. what we have filed today, supported by sworn testimony of jurors is that the clerk of court had improper private communications with the jurors and the subject matter, the

subject matter of those communications was the credibility of the defense that the murdaugh legal defense team put up and it was a believeability of the defendant's own testimony. now, there's been a lot said, talked about, whether alex should have taken the stand. i can assure you, i can assure you when we considered what factors and what we should and should not do and considered whether he should take the stand, we never considered the likelihood reported to us by the jurors that the clerk of court would go in to the sanctity of the jury room before he testified and tell the jurors don't be fooled by his testimony, watch out for his body language, and that is what the sworn testimony that we have filed in court today says, and if that is true, which we have every reason to believe it is, and no reason to believe it is not, there is no choice but the court to grant a new trial. >> thank you, any questions? no?

ok. [indiscernible] >> i think we observed it, we -- i was there. yeah, yeah. i was there, i watched it. we were not looking to imput nefarious conduct, but what the jurors reported to us they were off talking, the forelady and the clerk. i saw them together, but you know, i was not watching -- i believe -- look, i've been doing this almost 50 years. the bedrock of any trial, i've done hundreds of them, the clerk of court is the person that makes sure the jury gets their food, if they are put up for the night someplace to stay, their travel accommodations are met. they are not someone that ever

should talk to them about the case, i've never had it happen. again, i've been doing this for a very long time, never heard of it happening until this case. >> and one thing we want everyone to understand the clerk of court is an elected official by the people. not appointed by the judge, not appointed by the judiciary, it's a public official who is elected and independent state actor. and so what we are complaining about in the motion we filed today is the conduct of an elected official, not conduct by judge newman or anybody in the unified court system. >> and important also to understand that she is a state actor and that's why we forwarded today a letter to the u.s. attorney asking them to open an investigation into the violation of alec murdaugh's civil rights by a state actor under color of state law. >> i believe you guys have four jurors had affidavits -- [indiscernible] did they reach

out to you or did you reach out to them? >> well, this is an interesting story. let jim tell you. >> so immediately in the aftermath of the verdict we had received information that we needed to look into what happened in the jury room. we started down that road and we met a zone of silence, no jurors would speak to us, and so we were, you know, what i like to call, we were given the heisman, right. and then the clerk of court wrote her book, published her book, that zone of silence collapsed and jurors were upset about that, the ones we talked with and were more than willing to come forward and tell us the things that we had sort of heard through a whisper campaign, and so as a result of that, we were able to interview some jurors. now, there was still a number of jurors who maintain that zone of silence, who have not talked to us. we did try to reach out to all of them we could get in touch

with but we, you know, the information we got, i can tell you was independent of each juror, the first juror we talked to, we got information about miss hill saying don't be fooled, and then second juror, independent of the first juror says the same thing and the third juror independent of the other two, say the same thing. and so we are very confident the information is accurate. >> timeline? ruling on -- [indiscernible] >> ask them. we don't have any control over that. we did receive notice from the court of appeals the attorney general has ten days to respond to our motion. now, i think what's interesting to me again, having done this for so long, we -- once we had that initial contact with that first juror, we began going around, we had a list and knocking on literally on sundays, knocking on jurors' doors asking them to speak with us. some would not come out, some told us never to come back, but

some did and some talked to us, i'll give you an example and one of the things we heard was once the jury went out, even though there were six smokers and they were given smoke breaks during the entire trial, once the jury went out they were told no more smoke breaks, you are -- you people that want nicotine, you have to get a verdict first. it's that kind of stuff. that indicates something, and the clerk would be the one to communicate that. why? so, a bunch of folks told us stuff that appeared to be inconsequential but in the total context indicated to us that what we put in this petition about the clerk is credible and based on sworn testimony from two jurors and we interviewed a third, my paralegal, holly miller has given you an affidavit, or filed an affidavit on what she told us.

a lot of these folks just don't want to get involved but they are going to be involved if we get a hearing, because each and every one of them will have to testify in an open court before you as to what happened and what didn't happen. one at a time, who? >> the judge at least aware of some of the allegations you talk about in your motion, jury 75 and the judge said oh, boy [indiscernible] >> and that's a good point. there's no suggestion that the judge did anything untoward. but what that does do if it comes back, he may end up being a witness so i mean -- until the court of appeals acts, that issue does not have to be dealt with. >> the court was aware but did not intervene -- [indiscernible] >> we didn't know he didn't intervene. he may be a witness.

>> it could have changed the verdict had it been introduced at trial. >> that's not the legal test. the legal test is the subject matter prejudiced to the defense. improper private conversation material to the defense. if it's immaterial like what do you want to have for dinner, do you want to take a smoke break, you want to go home, those are immaterial matters. but when the subject matter is, and is reported under oath by these jurors, it was a direction on how you should receive alex murdaugh's testimony. look at him, don't be fooled by him. that's the core of our defense and something we had no chance to defend against and so we strongly believe if that evidence is accurate and the law will require a new trial. >> when was the last time -- >> fully charged? >> what was the last time --

>> no comment. >> [indiscernible] >> i can't talk about attorney/client privilege information. i can tell you when i shared with him the affidavits, he's a lawyer, he was astonished, he was shaking, in disbelief and thanked mr. harpootlian, mr. barber and myself for spending our weekends on dirt roads in colleton county. >> by the way, we have seen more of colleton county on dirt roads, in places we didn't -- we are city boys, didn't believe existed in this state, looking for folks that would talk to us. a lot of doors slammed in our face, a lot of doors slammed in our faces. >> [indiscernible]. >> i'm sorry? >> do you think miss hill should still have a job? >> no comment. i'm sorry, what? >> ex-husband of the -- [indiscernible] hidden camera transcripts as well, not something -- [indiscernible]

>> yes. >> that's a serious, serious allegation. >> everything we have alleged, everything in the affidavits is serious. this is a very serious, serious matter. and what you see in the sworn testimony in file -- been filed today is miss hill told the court that there was a facebook post by this juror's ex-husband. the ex-husband has filed an affidavit saying i've never posted a facebook post, miss hill says he must have deleted it, we can't find it, but they produced a facebook post, someone from the same name apologizing for an earlier facebook post and the state made him do it, etc., etc., and miss

hill related that as being this juror's ex-husband, miss hill had this ex-husband's photograph, you can match them up, they don't match and what we do know and laid it out in detail in the brief is that the apology facebook post was posted i think on february 16th and said we had deleted it the day before. february 15th. miss hill is telling judge newman on february 23rd i just saw this facebook post. impossible, impossible. and she told the juror sled went out and asked the ex-husband and he confirmed that. >> and we went down and interviewed the ex-husband and he allowed us, i would not know how to do it, but phil did, to download his entire facebook history. none is in there. so, we have done what we can do,

we are not the police, you know, we have no way to compel anybody to talk to us or give us anything. we have asked nicely. i will say this. the two jurors that gave affidavits have an attorney, who was skulking around here a moment ago back there, if you want to know about those two jurors, may want a chat with him. >> what's the motivation do you think of the jurors talking? are they upset with the clerk? >> i think they were upset with the way things went and the clerk i think they may very well -- yes, they are upset with the clerk, upset with the way this played out. >> regretting their vote? >> can't comment on that. >> facebook post -- [indiscernible] original post, have you ever had an opportunity to look at that -- >> no. no. i mean, well, the original post, don't know whether it ever existed. >> apology post. >> no. no, we did not speak -- >> do you have a timeline for

the fbi regarding -- [indiscernible] >> as you know, having talked to the fbi before, no. they are not going to tell us anything. >> in your letters to the u.s. attorney -- [indiscernible] >> sled is very invested in this conviction. how invested? the agent, david owens that testified under cross examination by jim admitted two things. one, he perjured himself in front of the grand jury and fabricated evidence. sled made him the law enforcement agent of the years. if this is remanded back, the trial court should pick somebody else, if fbi is not doing it, then there are other folks, sheriffs departments, not colleton county, but could interview jurors and bring them to court. they are going to end up

testifying anyway. may not be any reason to interview them. may put a somebody on them and bring them to court. >> [indiscernible] >> yeah, that's something that that would happen if we get the hearing we requested, to get subpoena power, subpoena, not just individuals to come to court, jurors come to court, witnesses come to court but subpoena records. phone records, emails, for example. so, with a hearing we have a broad array of assets at our disposal to bring evidence to court. right now we have nothing except dick's mercedes and dirt roads in colleton county. no, we have not had any juror contradict anything what the other jurors are saying. what you, jim, what you saw in

our -- in some of the affidavits is the jurors were separated in two rooms and sort of broke up from, you know, guys in one room, gals in another room, i don't know if that was appropriate. men in one room, females in another room, so the comments that we have gotten on the sworn affidavits come from the ladies' room, if you will, more so than the men's room, but we do have information that we submitted from one juror where he does acknowledge that she talked to them about evidence, about autopsy photos and don't be upset about them. that should not be happening, that should not be happening, and this juror is a smoker and you know, he relayed to us basically the course of effect of people who have a nicotine habit not able to smoke -- >> until they reached a verdict. >> until they reached a verdict.

>> [indiscernible] >> do what now? >> motion -- [indiscernible] >> i will read it after we get done with this, but i don't think i ought to keep all those folks doing that. >> requesting a change of venue? >> you have to get a new trial before you get there, that's not something we will talk about today. >> yes, ma'am. >> [indiscernible] >> we know some of the statements were made in front of the jurors in the one jury room. i think there were only six jurors in that room. or maybe eight, i'm not sure. but not all the jurors would have been present for all the statements. clearly they were given in one room or the other.

>> catalyst to reinvestigate this was conversation from the book? >> so we have not -- we didn't stop investigating but we were hitting brick walls until her book came out and then jurors who obviously were not comfortable with how she handled matters were even less comfortable with her going on a book tour and making money off what she did. that's what was reported to us. >> he -- [indiscernible] >> she's trying to make a lot of money, that's the point. she -- she's trying to make money off of it, she's selling the book. the question is, was it a successful scheme? i don't know. i mean, if you've read it -- i'm not going to give a book review

here, but i don't know that you buy the book. it's not well written, the story she tells is not accurate in our opinion, at least the facts as we saw them. >> what did you think about -- [indiscernible] >> you know, the problem i have with what she says in there is after going to moselle, we, if you notice, the plural we, felt such and such and such and such. is that the jurors and here? i think it's great examination for her when she testifies in this matter before the trial judge if the court of appeals sends it back. >> do you want any hearing in this matter to be public? >> absolutely, absolutely. we want all of y'all there, we miss ya. any other questions? >> you say you are investigating, along your investigation then into the

alleged jury misconduct, have you uncovered any additional things you would present in a second trial in defense? >> let's not talk about that. >> yeah, no -- if we are lucky enough to get a second trial, you have to wait and see, you know. we are not going to disclose any of that today. >> what is your optimism for getting this motion? >> i am -- i'm very optimistic that ultimately we will get a new trial. how long that will take, i don't know. >> trying to reach -- [indiscernible] >> we have not reached out to clerk hill. we had reached out to some other folks, and based on the information we received we thought it would be pointless to reach out to her.

>> we are focused on getting him a new trial. that's what we have been working on. anything else? no, thank you so much. let me read the statement to him real quick. >> sandra: all right, those were the attorneys for alex murdaugh, they are revealing new evidence and releasing a motion requesting a new trial there in south carolina. really, really interesting detail that they are providing in all of this, but as you heard him say at the end, if we are lucky enough to get a new trial. we'll see where all this goes, john. >> john: the allegation is, and this was a lengthy motion filed today in colleton county is that the clerk of the court, rebecca hill, during the trial, was in communication with the foreperson of the jury and alleged by dick harpootlian and jim griffin making suggestive statements to the foreperson to try to speed deliberations

along, they say, looking for a guilty verdict so that she could sell a book that she was writing about the trial. again, it's -- you have to hear it, it's a lengthy filing. and they are petitioning for a new trial. it's a pretty high bar to jump. >> sandra: as noted, a pretty serious allegation and the lawyer said all of this is serious stuff. jonathan turley, real quickly, john, is following this and admittedly says he's coming from a criminal defense background, the new evidence brought forward by the lawyers is deeply disturbing he says and raises serious questions about the possible need for a new trial. he says the role of the clerk in interacting with the jurors is a significant concern, the very least, it warrants further investigation to establish the underlying facts. >> john: they are asking for an investigation for sure. criminal defense attorney jonna spilbor. harpootlian and griffin allege the clerk of the court tampered

with the jury by advising them not to believe murdaugh's testimony and other by the defense, misrepresenting critical and material information to the trial judge to remove a campaign she believed it was favorable to the defense. always a high bar to get a retrial, do you think they can clear that bar with this? >> this is such a legal can of -- like my jaw should still be on the floor. i just can't imagine anything like this happening by the hand of the person who was essentially the right hand of a trial judge in the case like this. at the very -- and you are right, this is a very high bar. it is almost impossible to overcome that high bar. people ask for new trials all the time, they are routinely denied. however, in this case, at the very least, alec murdaugh deserves a hearing to determine

whether that new trial is warranted and i can't imagine any judge saying no to the hearing based on the evidence that we now know is in the petition that i cannot wait to read. >> john: in her very fine examination of this trial and the whole case in her fox nation special, martha maccallum does talk to rebecca hill. and also of course talked to buster murdaugh who insists his father was railroaded in the trial. listen to what he said. >> i do not believe it was fair. >> why? >> i was there for six weeks studying it and i think it was a tilted table from the beginning and i think unfortunately a lot of the jurors felt that way prior to when they had to deliberate. it was predetermined in their minds prior to when they heard any shred of evidence that was given in that room. >> john: now i don't know if buster had the information that harpootlian and griffin just outlined but what he's saying would be a piece of what they just told us.

>> you know, and it sort of makes sense for those of us who watched every moment of this trial, this was a well-known family in the community, these were agregious facts, alec murdaugh got caught in tremendous lies so in a sense he shot himself in the foot. however, the fact you have somebody inside the courtroom, not an attorney, not the judge, but an insider trying to give signals or worse to the jurors is something that just cannot stand. so, and the benefit to alec murdaugh, obviously, will be if he does get the hearing and a second trial, i would suspect that second trial is going to look a heck of a lot different than trial number one. but that's way down the road. >> john: you know, of course the case that harpootlian and griffin made all along here, particularly after the evidence came forward that it was alec murdaugh's voice heard on that

recording by his deceased son at the kennels, ok, maybe he's a liar, a drug addict, low life in many different ways but does not make him a murderer. the criteria has to be the following, change the original trial, after the original trial, could not have been discovered before the original trial and material to the guilt or innocence. if what the court clerk allegedly did is true, would it satisfy at least a number of those criteria? >> all the boxes are checked. every single one of those boxes are checked. the only way a judge can come back and not grant a hearing or not grant a new trial is if the jurors that came forward with their affidavits who we now know they have to testify at a hearing if a hearing is granted, if for some reason their

credibility is in the tank, and they are proven liars, to me that is the only way a judge can say no, we are not going to grant a new trial in this case because every single box in the criteria is met. >> john: all right. well, as the attorney said, the attorney general has a short period of time to respond, we will keep following this and see if they get their wish. jonna spilbor, as always, thanks for your analysis. appreciate it. sandra. >> sandra: major u.s. cities pushing to speed up work permits for the hundreds of migrants coming across the border. so far under the biden administration, grown to the highest level in nearly three decades and according to the latest census bureau report, more foreign workers joined the labor force than u.s.-born workers last year. steve morris, and robert wolf, i'll ask your interpretation of that. these are just facts, right.

robert, government data coming in. on the number of u.s.-born workers, 1.2 million of them lost their jobs, according to the august jobs report, while 688,000 foreign-born workers joined the workforce. how do you interpret that? what is happening? >> yeah, i think it's a good thing. we have a tight labor force, so you have three different things here. you have u.s. citizens foreign-born, you have, and you have immigrants that are getting either permanent work permits or temporary visas, and then you have migrants coming in legally that we have accepted about 3 to 500,000 this year to fill jobs that were needed. so in a tight labor force it's critical to make sure that we have this type of labor participation. it's only helping our economy and especially with the aging population and baby boomers exiting the workforce. so this is working. this is how labor force works.

>> sandra: steve, your interpretation. >> stop the presses, this must be the first time in a couple years robert and i completely agree. look, we want the immigrants to come in legally but boy do we need immigrant workers in this country. doing is much of the jobs that are necessary, everywhere i go, especially in the service sector, you see immigrants doing essential jobs. we also need immigrants workers at the high end. if you go to silicon valley, some of our tech sectors, so much is driven by immigrant talent. my bottom line, and maybe robert and i disagree a little about this, they have to come in legally. we just can't have millions of people streaming across the border. the biden policy is reduced public confidence in our immigration system in a way that hurts everybody, sandra. >> sandra: interesting analysis, a trend that is happening and that is continuing. meanwhile, you know what, i was actually referencing you earlier

on this, robert, you have sort of hung in there on the economic data and said the american economy seems to be resilient in the face of what appears to be a lot of challenges. one area where you continue to point was credit card delinquency, car loan debt, that is now happening. there are more and more credit card delinquencies happening. 3.8% according to the latest equifax report. car loan defaults are on the rise, 3.6%. both of those figures are the highest they have been in ten years. what does this tell you? >> yeah, that inflation is hurting everyday americans, we knew that and you and i have been talking about this for over a year now, and you know, during covid everyone got help with assistance, and even though wages went up and some sectors more than inflation, credit card rates, mortgage rates, auto rates are normally variable, so this is starting to feel the pain because you know, with

respect to especially auto rates, they just don't go up, their wages are not going up as fast. so, we are starting to see and eating into their savings. that being said, we just need wages to continue to go up. >> sandra: continue would mean they are going up, real wages we know have been falling. steve, your thoughts on that. >> well, look, i think americans are financially stressed out right now and those statistics that you just showed indicate that more and more people are, you know, not paying their credit card debt, a terrible way to borrow, you will pay 20, 25% interest rates. but look, when you have inflation up like 18 or 19% over the last two and a half years and wages up only 15%, to maintain living standards people have to go more into debt. why bidenomics is a failure because people are poorer as a result of these policies in terms of purchasing power. >> sandra: agreed on one point disagreed on the other. we appreciate you both coming on and appreciate the discussion.

thanks for joining us. that was quite a kick-off to a new shortened week, john. a lot of breaking news. >> john: it was. no question about it. good to be here with you for the ride. speaking of shortened weeks, i'll be off tomorrow, i have to get a little surgery on my eye, but i will see you later in the week, sandra. >> sandra: we will be wishing for the very best outcome, john. >> john: it's not like it's anything important, right? >> sandra: got to have our eyes, only two of them. set your dvr. >> martha: we have breaking news this hour on "the story." attorneys for alec murdaugh calling now for a new trial for their client claiming new evidence shows jury tampering by the court clerk, rebecca hill. here she is. i want to take you back to that stunning even when this jury came back in less than three hours with a guilty verdict. she walked